1

1.CASE NAME: GULAM SARWAR VS UNION OF INDIA

CITATION: AIR 1967 SC 1335

INTERPRETATION OF COURT: If the doctrine of constructive res judicata be applied, this

Court, though it is enjoined by the Constitution to protect the right of a person illegally detained,
will become powerless to do so. That would reduce the scope of constitution. Therefore, the
Supreme Court held that the application of res judicata and constructive res judicata are not
applicable in habeas corpus cases and these kinds of petitions are to be decided based on merits.

2. CASE NAME: LALLUBHAI VS UNION OF INDIA

CITATION: AIR 1981 SC 728

INTERPRETATION OF COURT: Court cannot refuse to entertain a second petition for

habeas corpus on a fresh ground which could not, for good reasons, be taken in the earlier writ
petition, on the ground that it is barred by any doctrine of estoppel or constructive res judicata.
The constructive res judicate is not applicable in habeas corpus cases.

3. CASE NAME: ISWAR DUTT VS LAND ACQUISITION COLLLECTOR

CITATION: AIR 2005 SC 3165

INTERPRETATION OF COURT:The object of principle of res judicata as contained in

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to uphold the rule of conclusiveness of judgment, as
to the points decided earlier either by fact, law, or both, in every subsequent suit between the
same parties. Once the matter which was the subject-matter is determined by a competent court,
no party thereafter can be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. A judgment of a court
of concurrent jurisdiction directly upon a point would create a bar in regards to a plea, between
the same parties in some other matter in another court, where the said plea seeks to raise afresh
the very point that was determined in the earlier judgment.

NAME: P. RAJ KUMAR

ROLL NO. 18LLB068
HW- 8
2